That was over 2 years ago for you.
Why do you support shorter sentences for child abusers?
Ironic you talking about shorter sentences given that the average sentence you type here tends to be a monosyllabic grunt.
2 Likes
But the real irony is you spouting about victims when you support shorter sentences for child abisers
The discussion revolved around whether or not Hook should be sacked for his comments after his apology. The most vocal in this argument were without doubt those like yourself seeking to have him sacked and âheld accountableâ. If you took issue with the witch hunt to have him sacked you got labelled a rape apologist. Thats exactly what you are doing right now. i donât agree with his comments but the reaction far outweighed the offence in my opinion.
You are claiming there is a witch hunt against Donal og. but there was no witch hunt in Hooks case! Are people not allowed to be disgusted by his actions and allowed discuss them? I wouldnât call that a witch hunt. If people were actively trying to organise and have him sacked from his job that would be different.
Itâs possible to feel absolute disgust about rape, not blame the victim of a rape and have a conversation about personal responsibility also guys.
17 Likes
Your honeymoon sounds like savage craic.
6 Likes
Itâs what Hook probably felt he was doing,
Walsh and Cusack are guilty of completely misguided âloyaltyâ, nobody really knows 100% how theyâd react if it was somebody that they had a long standing personal relationship with, itâs easy to say that theyâd be dead to you but I wonder?? none are criminals
I agree with most of this. Thereâs a fella I used to hang out with a bit whoâs brother was done for something horrendous. Heâs in portlaoise prison. Fucked up the family, parents moved away. Last time we met for a pint I talked to him about this. Disgusted and dismayed as he is with his brother, he canât disown him entirely. He may be a sick cunt and heâs angry as hell with him but heâs still his brother.
3 Likes
Have moved on to Tarifa kidâŚwas sitting out on the roof there sipping on complimentary cava and looking at Africa across the Gibraltar straits while princess is in the shower.
1 Like
The discussion mainly revolved around people actually talking about whether Hook was right to make the victim blaming comments or not, and people trying to deflect away from the actual victim blaming.
The most vocal, certainly from the sheer volume of comments Iâve seen across different forums, have been those defending Hook. Now, either that sort of reactionary right online opinion is exponentially more vocal than those who thought rightly Hookâs comments were disgraceful, or Ireland has a serious problem in society in how it views rape. I end to the view that itâs the former, but who knows.
That was a pretty sad discussion to have, to have to discuss whether a woman is to blame for her own rape or not.
One would have thought that perhaps as a society, we had moved beyond that, but clearly not.
Even today, weâve had posters deflecting away from what he said and trying to turn the discussion of what he said into a discussion about something else.
You are one of these posters.
I find myself arriving at a very obvious conclusion about why people would want to do that.
Youâve just claimed that Hook was the victim of a witch hunt but Cusack isnât. Which is extremely ironic given what you type above.
Hook is paid to give opinions.
While working in his job, he gave opinions, not for the first time, which society has decided are unacceptable, and harmful to women and victims of rape and sexual abuse because they perpetuate into society a deeply misogynistic view that not only can a woman be to blame for her own rape, but that she should expect such to happen if she agrees to take part in a consensual sex.
Those opinions are also completely wrong in a basic factual sense.
Itâs Hookâs responsibility in his job to not utter such extremely harmful and factually wrong opinions. He crossed a red line.
Cusack has uttered no such extremely harmful and factually wrong opinions in public. He perhaps misguidedly provided a character reference for somebody he knew but he has not uttered views that mitigate the seriousness of the crime Humphries committed.
And there is no justification for, say, Cusack losing his job over such.
So a character reference for a man who groomed his victim and sent pictures of his own genitalia is not harmful to the victim?
So Cusack was âmisguidedâ. I donât agree with that at all by the way but say he was. Is it possible Hook was âmisguidedâ in his comments?
Yes, and I think character witnesses are an integral part of a fair and just judicial system. Whether the judge takes any heed of the character witnesses depends on a number of factors, the specifics of the case (premeditated or spontaneous), who the witnesses are and their motivation, etc. The best character witnesses are those who know the defendant best, which is generally family members. Itâs a pretty damning indictment of anyone providing a character witness for Humphries, and essentially asking for a more lenient sentence, that the people who outed him and provided the evidence that convicted him were his own family (who also are victims).
What this question boils down to is whether Humphries should be sentenced to five years, which I believe is the standard in Ireland for an adult convicted of engaging in sex with a minor, or ten years where the adult uses a position of power to engage in sex with a minor. Given the evidence that has been made public, I donât know how anyone could justifiably argue against the latter sentence.
1 Like
Cusack didnât defend Humphriesâ crime.
Hook not only stated that a woman can be to blame for her own rape, but sarcastically asked why she was even surprised at being raped.
As I said, if Cusack had just blamed Humphriesâ victim for her own abuse, maybe heâd have had more people defending him, because thatâs what happened when Hook did it.
I wonder if the two lads knew as much as we do now when they provided the references?
The facts that emerged were quite different to what was in the public domain.
There is no conversation to be had about the âpersonal responsibilityâ of a rape victim, because they do not ever bear any personal responsibility whatsoever for being raped.
I donât know is the most honest answer I can give to that. Even so the knowledge was out there that this was a premeditated crime thus making Walsh and Donald Ogs character references even more hypocritical than Hooks outburst.
According to the reports from the sentencing hearing, Cusack said that Humphriesâ GGA coaching in a voluntary capacity should be considered a mitigating factor. Thatâs obscene stuff.
9 Likes
Actual link with the wording of such please.
Itâs like saying voluntarily becoming a priest should be a mitigating factor for a child molesting priest.
1 Like